1. ' GHULAM QADIR LAGHARI, J.---Through the instant appeal, appellant Muhammad Naveed has challenged the judgment dated 29.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur in Sessions Case No,302/2005 Re: State v. Muhammad Ismail and another arising out of Crime No,79/2005 registered at P.S "A" Section Sukkur for offence under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C. Whereby he acquitted the respondents/ accused under section 265-H(1), Cr.P.C.
2. ' Succinct narration of the prosecution case is that complainant Muhammad Rafique lodged FIR on 20.09.2005 at 1900 hours, stating therein that on the fateful day, he, his brother-in-law Akhtar Hussain, his relative Eidan and sons Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Naveed were available inside their house where at about 1900 hours, someone rang the bell of their house. Naveed answered thereto and thereafter informed the complainant that two persons were standing near the door of the otaq (guest house) whereas two others were available at the outer door of the house and were demanding to see the elders of the family; all being armed with pistols. The complainant's elder son Shafique then went to outside and on a commotion being heard, the complainant party rushed outside and saw the four armed persons, two of whom were identified to be accused Khawand Bux stated that since the fine imposed upon the complainant for deceased Abdul Sattar Mahar had not been paid, therefore, they would not be spared and fired at the left side of Muhammad Shafique's chest and then Abdul Rasool fired at his back with the result that complainant's son fell down. Complainant's other son Naveed then stepped toward and he was fired at by one unidentified accused which hit on his stomach and he also fell down. The complainant party's neighbor Dilawar Malik came running towards the scene and he was fired upon by the unidentified accused which hit him on the right leg. The accused decamped from the scene. It was then discovered that Muhammad Shafique had succumbed to his injuries, hence the complainant went to P.S. And lodged FIR.
3. ' After completing legal formalities, charge was framed against the respondents/accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter prosecution examined P.W/mashir of arrest Ali Dost, PW/author of FIR SIP Syed Hussain, PW Dilawar Hussain, PW/M.O. Dr. Muhammad Yaseen, PW Akhtar Hussain, PW Muhammad Naveed, PW Gulzar, PW Inayatullah, PW/SIO Karim Bux, PW/Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Sukkur Mr. Amjad Soomro, thereafter prosecution closed its side.
4. ' The statements of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded by the trial court wherein the accused/respondents totally denied the prosecution case and claimed to be innocent. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of learned ADPP and defence counsel acquitted the respondents/accused vides impugned judgment as referred above.
5. Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Shar learned counsel for appellant/complainant argued that on the day of incident complainant, his brother-in-law Akhtar Hussain, his relative Eidan and sons Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Naveed were available inside their house where at about 1900 hours, someone rang the bell of their house. Naveed went out side the door and answered thereto and thereafter informed the complainant that two persons were standing near the door of the otaq (guest house), whereas the other two were standing at the outer door of the house. The complainant's son Shafique then went outside and on commotion being heard, the complainant party rushed outside and saw the four persons, two of whom were identified to be accused Khawand Bux and Abdul Rasool. He further argued that during the investigation the respondents/ accused were arrested and the identification parade of accused Ismail was held before the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur on 29.11.2005, where P.Ws Akthar Hussain and injured witness Naveed had identified accused Ismail in presence of mashirs Abdul Qayum Soomro and Kouro Khan. He further argued that 164, Cr.P.C. Statements of Naveed and Aftikhar Hussain were recorded before the learned Magistrate, where they have implicated the accused Muhammad Ismail and Manzoor in their statements. He further argued that during trial of the case complainant died due to natural death. Prosecution examined eye-witness Akhtar Hussain and injured witness Naveed, they both have supported the prosecution case and have implicated the accused Muhammad Ismail and Manzoor in the commission of offence by deposing that accused Khawand Bux and Abdul Rasool made straight fire on deceased Muhammad Shafique which hit him and he succumbed to injuries. Accused Manzoor fired with pistol which hit to Dilawar passer- by person on his both legs, while accused Ismail fired with pistol which hit injured P.W. Muhammad Naveed on his stomach. He further argued that the learned Magistrate Mr. Amjad Soomro in his statement before the trial court has stated that on 29.11.2005 accused Ismail was produced before him by police for identification parade, he arranged dummies and thereafter called witnesses Akhtar Hussain, Naveed as well as complainant, who had identified accused Ismail in presence of mashir Abdul Qayyum and Kouro Khan. He further argued that mashir has also been examined. He further argued that prosecution examined Dr. Muhammad Iqbal who examined injured Muhammad Naveed and has stated that he had received one fire shot injury at anteriorly left lumber region of abdomen and the said Dr. Also examined injured Dilawar Hussain and stated in his statement that he has received fire short injuries on his leg. He further argued that prosecution also examined Dr. Muhammad Yaseen who has stated that he has examined dead body of Muhammad Shafique and he found four injuries on his body and he has stated that deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire shot injury, thus the medical evidence coroborate the ocular evidence.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant also stressed upon his arguments that the impugned judgment of the learned trial court is the result of misreading of the evidence as the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the version of the prosecution which has fully been supported by the complainant P.Ws namely Akhtar Hussain, Muhammad Naveed and injured victim Dilawar. He has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt, which due to the misreading of evidence, placed on record by the trial court has acquitted the respondents/accused. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court that the judgment is not speaking one, it has been hastily written and the same is not called as speaking judgment for the reason that the injured victim Naveed has fully supported the version of complainant, inspite of lengthy cross of defence side, the versions of P.Ws were not shaken or made any doubt in the evidence, same has not been appreciated by the learned trial Judge while acquitting the accused persons. It has also been contended that the trial court has merely relied upon the minor contradiction of police PWs, while giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons, but the circumstantial evidence has fully supported the version of complainant and has fully proved the case of prosecution without shadow of doubt. He has further contended that the prosecution had successfully made out the prima facie of the case in their favor and sufficient material has been placed before the learned trial court to punish the accused persons, still the learned trial Judge did not pay any heed to the material placed before him while acquitting the accused persons. He lastly prayed that while setting aside the impugned judgment the accused/respondents may be convicted and sentenced as per law. He has placed reliance of cases reported in 2011 SCM R 145, 2011 PCr.LJ 388 and 2007 SCM R 813.
7. ' Messrs Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo and J.K Jarwar learned advocates for the accused/respondents Muhammad Ismail and Manzoor argued that the names and features descriptions of the accused are not mentioned in the FIR as well as in 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses. They further argued that' the accused/respondent Muhammad Ismail was arrested on 17.11.2005 and challaned and other accused Manzoor who was granted bail before arrest. They further argued that P.W.
8. Akhtar Hussain and Muhammad Naveed in their cross-examination have stated that they have seen accused persons at. P.S. Hence the identification parade of the accused persons which was held before the Magistrate after 2-1/2 months has no value in the eye of law. They further argued that during the investigation conducted by the DSP Muzzafar Hussain Mahar accused were found innocent and then on the application of complainant party again further investigation was conducted S.P Nisar Ahmed Channa who also found the accused to be innocent. They further argued that the appeal of the appellant merits no consideration and it is liable to be dismissed in limine.
9. ' Learned D.P.G while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondents, supported the impugned judgment and has contended that the judgment has been passed by the trial court according to legal norms and cogent reasons have been given for acquittal of the accused. He also prayed for dismissal of acquittal appeal.
10. ' We have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents including the learned D.P.G and perused the record minutely made available before us.
11. ' From the perusal of record it reveals that P.W Akhtar Hussain in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 20.9.2005 he along with Eidan Lashari and Muhammad Rafique were sitting in house of Muhammad Rafiq when at 7.00 p.m. On the call Muhammad. Shafiq came out of the house and they also followed him. They saw that he was bleeding from his body. Accused Khawand Bux and Abdul Rasool directly fired towards Muhammad Shafiq in their presence with pistols. Accused Muhammad Ismail fired towards Muhammad Naveed who is also son of the complainant. Accused Manzoor fired towards Dilawar and he sustained injuries on his both legs. The said witness Akhtar Hussain has further deposed that complainant has given the names of two accused persons namely Abdul Rasool and Khawand Bux in the FIR but not given the names of present accused and showed two unidentified persons in the FIR. In his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement he has also given the names of two accused persons Abdul Rasool and Khawand Bux and two unidentified accused persons.
12. ' In cross-examination the said P.W. Has stated that it is correct that the complainant has not given hulyas and descriptions of the present accused persons in the FIR but stated about two unidentified persons. He has further deposed, that it is correct that he has also not given the hulyas and descriptions of the present accused in his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement and only stated that two unidentified persons were with accused Abdul Rasool and Khawand Bux. It is correct that prior to this incident accused were not known to him. Voluntarily says that DSP Muzaffar Mahar during investigation found the accused persons innocent but on their application to the Magistrate present accused were challaned. It is correct that at the time of incident SP was Nisar Ahmed Channa. It is correct that SP Nisar Ahmed Channa has also found the accused innocent. Names of present accused were informed to them by DSP Muzaffar Mahar. It is correct that DSP Muzaffar Mahar arrested the present accused persons and informed them then they went to PS and saw the accused persons who were the same accused persons. It is correct that before the arrest of present accused persons they were unaware about their names. Identification parade of the accused persons was held on their request by the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate also recorded their 164, Cr.P.C. Statements on their request, as police was releasing the accused persons after their opinion that the accused are innocent. It is correct that at the time of incident it was dark night. It is correct that identification of the accused persons was held after 2-1/2 months of the incident. He was called by I.O. Inayatullah Soomro for identification of the accused persons who was conducting the investigation of the same crime. At that time incharge of investigation team was SPO Haji Muzaffar Hussain. It is correct that when he reached at PS, Karim Bux Bhayo was available at PS and accused were also there. It is correct that SPO Muzzafar Hussain found the present accused persons innocent and submitted such report to the concerned Magistrate. It is correct that complainant Muhammad Rafiq was working as SHO in police department and he was retired person.
13. ' P.W Muhammad Naveed in his examination in chief has stated that complainant is his father, whereas deceased Muhammad Shafiq was his brother. On 20.9.2005 at 1900 hours time he was available in his house at Military Road Sukkur. He was sitting in his house along with his brother Muhammad Shafique, maternal uncle Akhtar Hussain and Eidan Lashari. On the bell came out of the house and found four persons who asked him to call some elder person. Then he informed the same to his brother. Meanwhile his brother Muhammad Shafiq came out side the house. They also came out side the house. In their presence accused Khawand Bux directly fired on his brother which hit him. Second fire was made by accused Abdul Rasool on back side. He raised cries on which accused Ismail fired towards him which hit him on his stomach. One Dilawar was also standing in the street and he also received injury from the hand of accused Manzoor. Thereafter accused persons ran away towards eastern side.
14. ' The said witness in his cross-examination has stated that at the time of incident his age was about 12 years. He has given the names of two accused persons namely Khawand Bux and Abdul Rasool in his section 161, Cr.P.C. Statement, but he has given the names of four accused persons in his section 164, Cr.P.C. Statement before Magistrate. His section 161, Cr.P.C. Statement was recorded by police in the hospital. He further stated that his father has disclosed him the names of present accused persons in the house. He does not remember when his 164, Cr.P.C. Statement was recorded by police. The said witness in cross-examination led by co-accused Manzoor has deposed that the names of present accused persons were disclosed to him by his father. It is correct that he has not given the hulyas and descriptions of the present accused in his 161, Cr.P.C.
15. Statement. He has seen the accused Manzoor and Ismail in police mobile when they were being shifted from PS to court for holding identification parade.
16. ' P.W/mashir of Danishnama of deceased, Gulzar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that Danishnama of deceased Muhammad Shafiq was prepared by police in his presence. Co-mashir was Behram. He further deposed that mashirnama of vardat was prepared on 20.09.2005 at about 2300 hours time. Five empties of pistols were secured from place of incident in his presence.
17. Mashirnama of injuries of deceased Muhammad Shafiq was prepared on 20.09.2005. Blood stained clothes of the deceased were secured in his presence under mashirnama. Police also prepared mashirnama of injuries sustained by injured Naveed in his presence as well as in presence of co- mashir Behram.
18. ' In cross-examination the said mashir has deposed that on the day of incident he came to the house of complainant. He along with Behram came on motorcycle at about 8.30 p.m. Time.
19. Mashirnama of injured Dilawar was prepared in Civil Hospital. Mashirnama of injuries of injured Dilawar was prepared at 9.00 p.m. Time. He in cross-examination has also deposed that he did not know that who informed him about the incident.
20. ' P.W Inayatullah first I.O. Of the FIR has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 20.09.2005 he received copy of FIR of Crime No,79/2005 for investigation. On the same date he prepared mashirnama of injuries sustained by injured Dilawar Hussain in presence of mashirs Gulzar Ali and Behram. On 20.09.2005 he visited the place of vardat in presence of same mashirs and prepared such mashirnama. On 20.09.2005 he inspected the dead body of deceased Muhammad Shafiq and prepared such mashirnama in presence of same mashirs. He also secured clothes of the deceased on 20.09.2005 and prepared such mashirnama. He also prepared mashirnama of injuries sustained by injured Muhammad Naveed on 21.9.2005 in presence of same mashirs. He deposed that the accused were not arrested by him. Names of accused were not mentioned in the FIR. He further deposed that in his entire investigation he came to know that present both accused Muhammad Ismail and Manzoor are not involved in this case but later on present accused were involved on the basis of identification held before a Magistrate. Present accused were also found innocent by second I.O. Karim Bux Bhayo as well as by DSP Muzafar Mahar during their investigation but accused were challaned on the directions of learned Magistrate.
21. ' In cross-examination said witness has deposed that it is correct that accused were found innocent in his investigation as well as during investigation of second I.O. Karim Bux Bhayo and DSP Muzafar Mahar but they were challaned on the directions of the Magistrate.
22. ' Second I.O. Karim Bux in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 17.11.2005 he arrested accused Muhammad Ismail near Suzuki stand Sukkur in presence of P.0 Ali Dost and PC Khadim Hussain. He was arrested in doubt and on 30.11.2005 identification parade of accused was held before the Magistrate. Thereafter accused was challaned to face the trial.
23. ' The said witness/second I.O. In his cross-examination has stated that he received information through spy man. It is correct that complainant had not moved any application for accused Ismail.
24. They had gone to arrest the accused by foot. It is correct that he had not taken any private person to act as mashir. He has further deposed that accused Manzoor was not arrested by him and during his investigation he has not collected any material evidence against accused Manzoor.
25. ' Mr. Amjad Soomro Civil Judge and J.M in examination-in-chief has stated that on 29.11.2005 he was posted as Civil Judge/J.M Sukkur and on the same day accused Muhammad Ismail was produced before him by police for identification parade and then he arranged for dummies and thereafter called witnesses Akthar Hussain and Naveed as well as complainant Muhammad Rafique who identified the accused Muhammad Ismail in his presence and in presence of mashirs Abdul Karim Soomro and Kouro Khan. Thereafter he prepared such memo of identification and signed it and obtained signatures of mashirs on it.
26. ' In cross-examination the said Magistrate has deposed that identification of the accused was held in the court room. It is correct that same fact is not mentioned in the memo of identification that whether it was held in court room or in chamber. He further deposed that he did not remember whether accused Muhammad Ismail was produced before him five times for getting remand by police prior to identification test. It is correct that it is not mentioned in the identification memo that when accused was produced before me, his face was muffled. It is correct that the names of dummies are not mentioned in the memo of identification by him. It is correct that dummies were of different height and clothes when accused was mixed with them. It is correct that time is not mentioned in the memo of identification.
27. ' P.W/injured Dilawar Hussain in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 20.09.2005 at about 1900 hours time he was coming back from Subzi Mandi after purchasing fruits there all of sudden he received one bullet injury on his leg. He has not seen any accused, hence both the accused present in the court are not same as he has not seen them at the time of incident at the place of vardat. His statement before police was not recorded.
28. ' Dr. Muhammad Yaseen who was posted as casualty Medical Officer at GMC Hospital Sukkur on 20.09.2005 and conducted post mortem of deceased Muhammad Shafiq has stated that the deceased has sustained as many as four injuries on his person and he opined that the death has been occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries mentioned above. Injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by discharge from fire arm weapon and the injuries individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
29. ' Dr. Iqbal Ahmed who was posted as CMO at Civil Hospital Sukkur on 20.09.2005 who examined the injured Naveed Ahmed and Dilawar Hussain, he has stated that injured Naveed Ahmed sustained one "lacerated punctured wound of entry of fire arm inverted margins circular shape, no blackening and charring present at anteriorly left lumber region of abdomen. No wound of exist present". He also examined injured Dilawar and found four lacerated wounds i,e, two punctured and two exist wounds on the person of injured Dilawar and all the injuries were caused by fire arm weapons, fresh in nature. Same injured was referred to Vascular Surgeon, Orthopedic Surgeon Civil Hospital Karachi for better treatment. He has further stated that all the injuries were reserved for want of progress report from Vascular and Orthopedic Surgeon Civil Hospital Karachi and still he has not received the concerned progress reports from Civil Hospital Karachi.
30. ' We have given consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.G. For the State and perused the record.
31. 'Perusal of record shows that the prosecution is not free from doubt for the reasons that the names of the present accused/respondents were not mentioned in the FIR nor their huliya/features descriptions were disclosed by the complainant in the FIR; whereas the names of the accused/respondents were disclosed by Akhtar Hussain and Muhammad Naveed in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 8.12.2005. Identification of accused Muhammad Ismail was held on 29.11.2005 before the learned Magistrate, however, identification parade of accused Manzoor Ahmed was not held and he was granted pre-arrest bail.
32. ' P.W. Muhammad Naveed in his cross-examination has admitted that his father has disclosed him the names of the present accused/respondents in the house.
33. ' He has also stated in his cross-examination that he had seen accused Manzoor and Ismail in police mobile when they were being shifted from P.S. To Court for identification parade. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Ismail was seen by him before the identification parade in police mobile when he was being shifted from P.S. To Court for identification parade. Hence the identification of accused B Muhammad Ismail by this witness in the identification parade before the learned Magistrate is doubtful and has no credibility, besides it he has stated that he has seen accused Manzoor and Ismail in police mobile before the identification parade, his such version is not trustworthy and believable as accused Manzoor was neither arrested by police nor his identification parade was held before the learned Magistrate. Hence his version is not creditable and believable.
34. ' P.W. Akhtar Hussain in examination-in-chief has stated that he and P.Ws also identified the accused persons before the Magistrate in identification parade. Accused Manzoor was neither arrested nor his identification parade was held hence his evidence that he has identified him before the Magistrate is false. He has also stated that complainant has given the names of two accused namely Abdul Rasool and Khawand Bux in the FIR but not given the names of present accused. The said witness in his cross-examination has admitted that it is correct to suggest that he has not given the huliyas/description of the present accused/respondents in his section 161, Cr.P.C. Statement and only stated that two unidentified persons were with accused Abdul Rasool and Khawand Bux. He has further stated in cross-examination that the names of the present accused/respondents were informed to them by DSP Muzaffar Mahar. He has also stated in cross- examination that it is correct that DSP Muzaffar Mahar arrested the accused persons and informed them, then they went to P.S. And saw the accused persons, who were the same accused persons.
35. The said witness in his cross-examination has admitted that DSP Muzaffar Mahar during investigation found the accused persons innocent but on their application to the Magistrate present accused were challaned. He has further admitted that it is correct that S.P. Nisar Ahmed Channa has also found the accused innocent. Said witness also admitted in his cross-examination that identification parade of the accused persons was held after 2-1/2 months of the incident. He has further admitted that when he went to P.S., SIP Karim Bux Bhayo was available at P.S., the accused persons were also there. It is worthwhile to mention here that only accused Ismail was arrested and accused Muzzafar was granted pre-arrest bail, means he had not seen the accused Muzzafar at P.S but witness Akhtar Hussain has given his name at the instance of complainant, besides it he had seen the accused Ismail at P.S. Hence the identification of accused Ismail before the Magistrate carries no weight in the eyes of law.
36. ' PW/injured Dilawar has stated that on 20.09.2005 at about 1900 hours time he was coming back from Subzi mandi after purchasing fruits there all of sudden he received one bullet injury on his leg.
37. He has not seen any accused, hence both the accused present in the court are not same as he has not seen them at the time of incident at the place of vardat. He was sent to hospital and his statement before the police was not recorded, he did not disclose the names of present accused/respondents nor implicated them in his statement before the Court in committing the murder of deceased Muhammad Shafiq and causing injuries to him and P.W. Muhammad Naveed.
38. ' Mashir Gulzar is the mashir of Danistnama of dead body of deceased Muhammad Shafique, injuries of injured Dilawar, place of vardat and recovery of empties from the place of vardat, who has supported the case of prosecution, but his evidence is not sufficient to convict the present accused/respondents as there is no trustworthy ocular evidence implicating the accused/respondents in the commission of offence of this case.
39. ' P.W. SIO Inayatullah has also stated in examination in chief that in his entire investigation he came to know that present both accused Muhammad Ismail and Manzoor are not involved in this case but later on the present accused/respondents were involved on the basis of identification parade held before the Magistrate. He has also stated that present accused were also found innocent by second 1.0., Karim Bux Bhayo as well as by DSP Muzaffar Mahar during their investigation but the accused were challaned on the directions of learned Magistrate. PM SIO Karim Bux Bhayo in his cross-examination has admitted that accused Manzoor was not arrested by him and during his investigation he has not collected any material evidence against accused Manzoor.
40. ' The learned Magistrate who conducted identification parade has stated that it is correct that it was not mentioned in the identification memo that when accused was produced before him, his face was muffled. It is correct that names of dummies are not mentioned in the memo of identification parade by him. He has further stated that it is fact that normally when accused persons are produced before the Magistrate for remand they used to sit in the court room in the custody of police. It is fact that the dummies were of different heights and clothes when the accused were mixed with them. It was the duty of the learned Magistrate to arrange the dummies of same size, heights and colours, which was not done by him, besides it as injured Muhammad Naveed and eye-witness Akhtar Hussain have stated in their cross-examination that they have seen the accused before the identification parade at P.S. Hence the identification of the accused before the learned Magistrate did not carry any weight in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on a case of Shabbir Ali alias Fouji v. The State reported in 2011 SCM R 563, wherein it has been held as under:-- "that complainant had neither named the accused nor given his descriptive features in the FIR.
41. Evidence of identification parade was of no value inherent defect that the witnesses have not described the role of accused in the occurrence while identifying him. Witnesses according to FIR did not know the accused prior to the occurrence and the identification parade was not held according to law, therefore, the identification of accused in the court by the witnesses was also of no value."
42. ' As in this case stated the above accused were shown to the witnesses at P.S. Before the identification parade and as per admission of the Magistrate that at the time of identification parade the dummies of same heights size and colour were not arranged by him, as such the identification of accused in identification parade before the learned Magistrate has also of no legal value.
43. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to bring on record any material which justify this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and reverse the findings of the learned trial court for the reason that principles of appeal against conviction and acquittal, were altogether different.
44. Accused in an appeal against acquittal, earned double presumption of innocence; one before trial and the other after acquittal and for reversal of acquittal of accused, appellant had to bring on record that the evidence which had been brought on record and had not been properly considered and the order of the trial court was fanciful, perverse and not in accordance with the law. Reliance is placed on a case reported as Mirza Noor Hussain v. Farooq Zaman and 2 others (1993 SCM R 305) wherein it has been observed as under:- - "that trial court's judgment having been supported by sound reasons Supreme Court could not substitute its own findings in place thereof unless it reached the conclusion that the findings of the Trial Court as well as those of the High Court were "artificial, shocking, ridiculous, based on misreading of evidence and leading to miscarriage of justice. No legal error was found in the judgments of the lower forums after scanning the evidence. Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed accordingly."
45. 'It is an established principle of law that on the examination of the order of acquittal as a whole credence should be accorded to the findings of the subordinate Court whereby the accused had been exonerated from the charge of a commission of the crime. An order of acquittal can only be interfered with if the same is found unreasonable, perverse and manifestly wrong. They obvious approach for dealing with the appeal against the conviction would be different and should be distinguished from the appeal against acquittal because presumption of double innocence of the accused is attached to the order of acquittal as laid down in a case of Munawar Shah v. Liaquat Hussain and others (2002 SCM R 713) wherein it has been held as under:-- "9. Be that as it may, the ordinary scope of petition or appeal against acquittal of the accused/Respondents is considerably narrow and limited. On the examination of the order the acquittal as a whole credence should be accorded to the findings of the subordinate Court whereby the accused had been exonerated from the charge of commission of the crime. It is an established principle of law that obvious approach for dealing with the appeal against the conviction would be different and should be distinguished from that against acquittal because presumption of double innocence of the accused is attached to the order of acquittal."
46. ' From the careful examination of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, it reveals that the same has no relevancy and quite distinguishable with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
47. 'In the light of what has been discussed above the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in the instant case is based on correct appreciation of evidence and application of law, hence does not require any interference in appeal. A judgment of acquittal can only be interfered if it is found to be perverse, unreasonable, arbitrary or manifestly wrong, whereas, no such element is available in this appeal. The complainant/appellant failed to point out any misreading or non- reading of evidence or the material which has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment. In view of above facts and circumstances and the dicta as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to hereinabove, we have dismissed the instant acquittal appeal by our short order dated 11.02.2016 and these are the reasons for the same.